[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-11155

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

DORA ALICIA ALVARENGA-PALACIOS, 

Petitioner, 

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent.

____________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A216-021-075

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-11155 Date Filed: 04/12/2022 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 21-11155

Before JILL PRYOR, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Dora Alvarenga-Palacios petitions for review of the final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief. Alvarenga-Palacios does not challenge the correctness of any 

determinations made in the BIA’s decision. Instead, she asks us to 

remand her case to the BIA so that she can pursue new relief. Specifically, she wishes to obtain a finding that she is entitled to relief 

from the IJ’s denial of her asylum claim as untimely because she is

a member of a class—of formerly detained asylum applicants who 

were not warned of the asylum filing deadline—established by the 

settlement agreement in a district court case that was finally approved a month after she filed her brief to the BIA. 

We review our subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Indrawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284, 1297 (11th Cir. 2015). The 

Immigration and Nationality Act limits our jurisdiction to review 

final orders of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We lack jurisdiction 

to review a final order in an immigration case unless the petitioner

has exhausted all administrative remedies available as of right. Id.

§ 1252(d)(1); Indrawati, 779 F.3d at 1297. A petitioner fails to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to a particular claim 

when she does not raise that claim before the BIA. AmayaArtunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006). 

USCA11 Case: 21-11155 Date Filed: 04/12/2022 Page: 2 of 3
21-11155 Opinion of the Court 3

This exhaustion requirement is not stringent but does require that 

a petitioner provide sufficient information to allow the BIA an opportunity to address any issues. Indrawati, 779 F.3d at 1297. 

A noncitizen may move to reopen her removal order. 8 

U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7). A motion to reopen may be granted based on

new evidence that is material and was not available and could not 

have been discovered or presented at the removal hearing. 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.2(c). During an appeal from an IJ’s decision, the BIA may 

not consider new evidence or remand for consideration of new evidence, but a party who wishes to present new evidence may file a 

motion to reopen. Id. § 1003.1(d)(7)(v). 

We lack jurisdiction to review Alvarenga-Palacios’s request 

for a remand because she failed to exhaust the issue. She did not 

mention to the BIA the settlement agreement under which she 

now seeks relief, either in her brief, which was issued after the district court had preliminarily approved the settlement agreement, 

or in a motion to reopen that she could have filed in the four 

months her appeal was pending with the BIA after the settlement 

agreement had been finally approved. As this is the only issue she 

raises, we dismiss her petition for review. 

PETITION DISMISSED. 

USCA11 Case: 21-11155 Date Filed: 04/12/2022 Page: 3 of 3